Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mathematical modeling to monitor workplace humor style and subordinate worked attitude involvement of telecommunications companies in Port Harcourt

5 views

Published on

ABSTRACT
The study monitors the effect on workplace humour style and
subordinate work attitude in telecommunication companies. The
output of staff in these organization were observed to reflect on their
subordinate work attitudes, job satisfaction and job involvement in
these companies, the study experience the positivity from these
dimensions as a function of workplace humour style in various
period at different conditions, linear trend were observed from the
predictive values, but there were variations despites the linear trend
displayed from these parameters through graphical representations.
These conditions implies that the input of subordinate work attitudes
determine the output of job satisfaction and staff efficiency
involvement, these dimensions determine the output of efficiency or
growth rate of these companies productivity, these parameters
generated the system that produced the predictive model, and
subjecting these parameters to model validation developed a
favorable fits, the study expressed the rate which these
organizational behaviour determined the efficiency of staff thus
generate positive or negative productivity, the study is however
imperative because the evaluation of these dimensions as a function
of workplace humour style has been monitored, these conceptual
framework has express their various function of influence in
different dimensions.
Keywords: Mathematical modeling, humour style, subordinate

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mathematical modeling to monitor workplace humor style and subordinate worked attitude involvement of telecommunications companies in Port Harcourt

  1. 1. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (ISSN: 2636-5480) Vol. 2(2): 023 - 033, September 2018 Available online: https://www.triplearesjournal.org/jmd Copyright ©2018 Triple A Research Journal Full length Research Paper Mathematical modeling to monitor workplace humor style and subordinate worked attitude involvement of telecommunications companies in Port Harcourt 1*Eluozo SN and 2Ukpong Uwem Johnson 1Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Gregory University Uturu Abia State, Nigeria 2Department of Management Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University Corresponding author: Eluozo S.N. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Gregory University Uturu, Abia State, Nigeria. E-mail address: ndusolo2018@gmail.com ABSTRACT The study monitors the effect on workplace humour style and subordinate work attitude in telecommunication companies. The output of staff in these organization were observed to reflect on their subordinate work attitudes, job satisfaction and job involvement in these companies, the study experience the positivity from these dimensions as a function of workplace humour style in various period at different conditions, linear trend were observed from the predictive values, but there were variations despites the linear trend displayed from these parameters through graphical representations. These conditions implies that the input of subordinate work attitudes determine the output of job satisfaction and staff efficiency involvement, these dimensions determine the output of efficiency or growth rate of these companies productivity, these parameters generated the system that produced the predictive model, and subjecting these parameters to model validation developed a favorable fits, the study expressed the rate which these organizational behaviour determined the efficiency of staff thus generate positive or negative productivity, the study is however imperative because the evaluation of these dimensions as a function of workplace humour style has been monitored, these conceptual framework has express their various function of influence in different dimensions. Keywords: Mathematical modeling, humour style, subordinate and involvement. INTRODUCTION The work relationship people have with their superiors and supervisors is one of the major factors affecting workers’ attitudes toward their jobs and employers. Work forms a major part of people’s lives and, in turn, a supervisor or manager be a major part of people’s work. The prominence of the issues surrounding the influence of supervisors on their subordinates is exemplified by the interest of researchers in studying the implications of the supervisor- subordinate relationship over the last century Avolio et al. (1999). The existing body of literature suggests that the impact of workplace relations on subordinates can be substantial and of considerable scope. For instance, O’Driscoll and Beehr (1994) argued that in many respects, the supervisor is the most immediate and salient person in an individual’s work context, as well as having a direct influence on
  2. 2. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Solo and Johnson 024 subordinate behaviour at the workplace. These impacts include instrumental implications such as: task; organisational fit; counterproductive workplace behaviours; organisational commitment; interpersonal workplace conflict; innovativeness and creativity; strain and turnover intentions; retention and perceived organisational support Eisenberger, Stiegelhamber and Vandenberghe et al., (2002); Michela (2007). Other implications relating to the qualitative work experience include stress, physical and psychological wellbeing O’Driscoll and Beehr, (1994), work satisfaction Watson (2009), feelings of energy and job involvement Atwater and Carmeli, (2009). Extant literature suggests that the influence of workplace relationships can be beneficial Eisenberger et al., (2002) as well as damaging Liu et al., (2010) to the attitudes, behaviours and work outcomes of subordinates. Several studies Meyer, 2000; Cooper, 2008; Lynch, 2002) have sought to establish the effect of various antecedents to subordinate work attitudes. However most of these studies (Rothbart, 1976; Meyer 1997) were theoretical and did not offer any empirical assessment of the relationship between the variables. Liu, et al (2010), in their assessment of the nature of the exchange between supervisors and subordinates in a survey of selected firms, established the negative effect of toxic supervisory behaviour on workers attitudes; however, their study also identified the role of traditional values and revenge cognitions in alleviating workers reprisals within the organization. The findings indicate the effect of supervisory behaviour and character dispensation and the implications of such on the attitudes of subordinates in the organization. Although, the study offers useful evidence with respect to understanding workers attitudes, it does not make bring into account or consider humour within the framework of its assessment. Other similar studies (O’Driscoll and Beehr, 1994; Vaill 1989) have also provided theoretical discourses about the nature of the relationship but have not treated the actual impact of the identified dimensions of workplace humour style on subordinate work attitudes. The attitude of workers within any social or organizational framework affects their productivity in several ways and often without the consciousness of the workers themselves. While job satisfaction, job commitment and job involvement usually lead to increased productivity, negative attitudes like absenteeism, lateness and theft can have the opposite effect on the overall performance individuals within an organization. The poor attitude of employees affects various service and product organizations and could be considered as the primary factors behind their failures and inability to sustain their client and customer bases. Workplace humour styles can be described as the various styles through which fun, comic and amusement are introduced into the workplace through gestures and communication. Humour is the essential element in workplace interaction and exchanges (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006) and plays an important role in the cohesion and interaction within a group. Similarly, it has certain effects and implications for relationships within the framework of the organization too. For individuals at workplace, humour concerns their working mood and is a means for them to interact with members on their team. Adequate exercise of humour can create a fun atmosphere and resolve embarrassment, dilemmas and even conflicts among people, establishing familiarity with others and contribute to the quality of interpersonal relationship. It can also accumulate more support from other people to boost the psychological energy of the leader or manager (Martin, 2001). In addition, humour helps relax members and contributes to job satisfaction and members’ quality of work life. With the sound of laughter and feel of happiness, one can develop positive emotions which offset the negative influences brought about by pressure at work and conflicts over role expectations (Lefcourt et al., 1995). A good atmosphere in the organization inspires individuals and teams in their innovations and creativity Edgar and Pryor, (2003) and brings out more productivity (Avolio et al., 1999; Clouse and Spurgeon, 1995). In other words, humorous leadership cannot only effectively boost leadership effectiveness (Decker and Rotondo, 2001), but also help enterprises and organizations grow and revolutionize to improve the overall performance of their organization (Meyer, 1997). However, studies also show that, humorous leadership cannot completely affect the overall organizational performance. It relies on whether leaders can successfully apply humour and whether the humour applied fits the traits of their teams and individuals within the organization or not. All of these have to do with the efficacy of humour (Romero and Pearson, 2004). Subordinate Work Attitudes is considered as a concept of social psychology. Attitude is a belief about something good or bad. It is a tendency to behave toward the object to keep or get rid of it. An attitude can be defined as an enduring organization of motivational, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect of the individual's world (Eagly and Chaiken 1998). Social scientists believe attitude does not always square with actual behaviour. Attitude is a hypothetical or latent variable rather than an immediately observable variable (Hagedorn, 2000). The concept of attitude does not refer to any one specific act or response of an individual, but it is an abstraction from many related act or responses. The more positive attitude one has, the more positive human behaviour will be seen in case of a specific topic. Attitude is the mediator between stimuli and responses. It can be defined as a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual‘s response to all objects and situations with which it is related (Visagie 2010). Campbell emphasized attitude as a response co- variation in response to a set of social objects (Campbell, cited in Visagie 2010). Attitude can be termed as the predisposition of an individual to evaluate some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favourable or unfavourable manner (Visagie 2010). Another research suggests that attitudes may not be closely related with
  3. 3. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 025 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci. behaviour in all the cases but in some conditions, which is narrow. Subordinate work attitude deals with how workers within an organisation behave. It involves the management directing employees into improving organisational and personal effectiveness. It plays an enormous role in determining relationships and workers job satisfaction. When employees are happy, it is usually because they are satisfied with their work (Bagherian et al., 2009). This also improves the quality of their work. Attitude and job satisfaction may not fall completely on the management but also on the employees. If employees enjoy their work, they will not need external motivation from management, but instead the satisfaction they attain from completing their work will motivate them (Eagly and Chaiken 1998). Workplace Humour Styles and Subordinate Work Attitudes Hemphill and McGregor (cited in O’Driscoll and Beehr, 1994) were among the first to critique the then traditional ways of viewing and assessing the influence of a supervisor or managers on subordinates, and instead began developing behavioural approaches of measurement. The behaviour of supervisors has been shown to impact on subordinate attitudes, such as job satisfaction, commitment and involvement (O’Driscoll and Beehr, 1994). Furthermore, supervisor-subordinate workplace relations and behaviour has been revealed to predict the efficacy of supervisors in initiating planned change, and mitigating the negative effects associated with organisational change, such as resistance to change (Higgs and Rowland, 2011). The interaction and relationship between supervisors and subordinates has also been found to influence cognitive and emotional appraisals of trust in the supervisor (Schaubroek, Lam and Peng, 2011). This indicates that subordinates appraise their supervisors’ role competency by assessing the supervisors’ task and relational behaviours. Supervisor behaviour is suggested to be a central component of the exchange processes, and as such helps determine the quality of leader-member exchange, which impacts on crucial subordinate attitudes and behaviours such as job satisfaction, job involvement and job commitment as well as integration with co-workers in team environments. GraenScandura and Graen (1986), and Mayfield and Mayfield (1998) have found that educating supervisors about the impact of their exchanges and relationships with subordinates can produce positive changes in subordinate team members. This is as Martin et al. (2003) insists that the affiliative and self-enhancing humours are the most commonly recommended styles in promoting cordial relations with subordinates within the workplace. Aggressive humour is discouraged because it has the potential to prevent positive outcomes and likely lead to negative ones. Job Satisfaction: As an attitude, job satisfaction has been extensively researched, and has in many studies been considered a dependent and an independent variable. Agho and Price (1992) defined job satisfaction as the extent to which employees like their work. In investigating job satisfaction, a distinction is usually made between a global feeling of liking one’s job in general and a constellation of attitudes about various facets of the job where individuals indicate their satisfaction with parts of their job, such as pay, promotion, work, supervisors and co-workers (Lease, 1998). According to Hagedorn (2000), when a worker feels a high level of achievement, is intensely involved, and is appropriately compensated by recognition, responsibility, and salary, job satisfaction is enhanced. Furthermore, the research (Agho and Price, 1992) points out how job satisfaction predicts employee engagement and explains that a worker who is experiencing a high level of job satisfaction would be likely to appreciate her or his position and be proud of the organization, resulting in high likelihood of job engagement. In this case, engagement is perceived as the final product, evidence, and the result of job satisfaction. Job involvement: Job involvement as a unidimensional construct concerned with an individual’s psychological identification (Blau, 1985). Paullay, et al (1994) found that two distinct constructs are important and necessary to experience job involvement. These are job involvement- role and job involvement-setting. Job involvement-role refers to the degree to which one is involved in the specific tasks that make up one’s job, and job involvement-setting, refers to the situation where the individual finds the present work environment engaging. Involvement in a specific job is different from involvement with work in general. The former is concerned with the present job’s ability to satisfy one’s present salient needs and the latter with the centrality of work in one’s life. The extent to which an employee experiences job involvement depends on (a) the saliency of both intrinsic and extrinsic needs and (b) the perception held by the individual of the present job’s ability to satisfy these needs (Kanungo, 1982). THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑉(𝑦)𝑐 𝑑 = (𝑦)𝑐 𝑑 𝑛 (1.0) Nomenclatures Cd = workplace humour style V = Subordinate work Attitudes  = Job Involvement X = Period Dividing equation (1.0) all through by 𝑐 𝑑 𝑛 we have 𝑐 𝑑 −𝑛 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑣(𝑥)𝑐 𝑑 1−𝑛 = (𝑦) (1.1)
  4. 4. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Solo and Johnson 026 Let P=𝑐 𝑑 1−𝑛 (1.2) 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑦 = (1 − 𝑛)𝑐 𝑑 −𝑛 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑 𝑑𝑦 𝑐 𝑑 −𝑛 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑 𝑑𝑦 = 1 1−𝑛 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑦 (1.3) Substituting equation (1.2) and (1.3) into equation (1.1) we have that 1 1−𝑛 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑉(𝑦)𝑝 = (𝑦) (1.4) Multiplied equation (1.4) all through by (1-n) 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑦 + 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑝 = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) (1.5) Equation (1.5) is linear in p. we applied the integrating factor method as follows: 𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒∫ 𝑝(𝑦) 𝑑𝑦 (1.6) Where 𝑝(𝑦) = 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) (1.7) Substituting equation (1.7) into (1.6) we have 𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒∫ 𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑑𝑦 = 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛) ∫ 𝑑𝑦 = 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 (1.8) Multiplied all through equation (1.5) by equation (1.8) we have 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑦 + 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑌 𝑝 =  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑 𝑑𝑥 (𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝) = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑌)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑(𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝) = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑦𝑑𝑦 Integrating both sides we have ∫ 𝑑[𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝] = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑𝑦 𝑒 𝑉(𝑌)(1−𝑛)𝑌 𝑝 = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑𝑦 (1.9) But to integrate (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑥 𝑑𝑥 we let 𝐷 = 𝑉𝑢(𝑥)(1 − 𝑛)𝑥 (1.10) 𝑑𝐷 𝑑𝑥 = 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) So that 𝑑𝑥 = 𝑑𝐷 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) (1.11) Substituting (1.10) and (1.11) into (1.9) we have 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝 = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝐷 𝑑𝐷 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑒 𝑢(𝑥)(1−𝑛)𝑥 𝑝 = (𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 + 𝐴 (1.12) Divide equation (1.12) all through by 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 we have 𝑝 = (𝑦) 𝑉𝑢(𝑦) + 𝐴𝑒−𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 (1.13) Substituting equation (1.2) into equation (1.13) we have 𝑐 𝑑 1−𝑛 = (𝑦) 𝑉𝑢(𝑦) + 𝐴𝑒−𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Mathematical model techniques were applied for the study, deterministic model techniques were applied, the variables were subjected into mathematical tools, these developed a system that generated governing equation, these were derived to produced model for the study, these predictive solution were also subjected to simulations were parameters were varied at different conditions base on the system, the derived simulation parameters will be compared with measured values from the fields for model validation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The study from tables 1 – 6, figure 1 - 6 on graphical representation monitors the rate of workplace humour in various periods, linear trend observed in the figures explain the positivity of staff attitude towards telecommunication companies in the study locations, exponential growth rate were observed, these shows the rates of displaced attitude in the work environment, the variation of these parameters remain the rate of workplace humour style and subordinate towards work attitudes in such organization, this relationship has express the structure of work efficiency output in telecommunication, the state of workplace humour style reflect the displayed attitude through subordinate work output, this expression detailed the pressure from this dimensions that always tent to developed the rate of satisfaction from the displayed attitude in these organizations, other pressured that influence through linear trend in these figure is job involvement that were observed to pressure the growth rate of workplace humour styles for improvement of the organization. The study monitored the rate of displayed hurmour and subordinate attitude in workplace. The trend explains the variables that drive managerial efficiencies on job satisfaction and its involvement in telecommunication companies, the figures presented in linear trend implies that the subordinate job satisfaction and involvement in these organizations will always developed its efficiency if the there is better percentage of improvement in these organization. The trends from predictive values were subjected to model validation, these were done by comparison between the predictive and measured field values, and both parameters developed favorable fits.
  5. 5. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 027 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci. Table 1: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 10 0.138 0.129995 15 0.207 0.194995 20 0.276 0.259995 25 0.345 0.324995 30 0.414 0.389995 35 0.483 0.454995 40 0.552 0.519995 45 0.621 0.584995 50 0.691 0.649995 55 0.759 0.714995 60 0.828 0.779995 65 0.897 0.844995 70 0.966 0.909995 75 1.036 0.974995 80 1.104 1.039995 85 1.173 1.104995 90 1.242 1.169995 Table 2: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 10 0.109 0.1 15 0.164 0.15 20 0.218 0.2 25 0.273 0.25 30 0.327 0.3 35 0.382 0.35 40 0.436 0.4 45 0.491 0.45 50 0.545 0.5 55 0.599 0.55 60 0.654 0.6 65 0.709 0.65 70 0.763 0.7 75 0.818 0.75 80 0.872 0.8 85 0.927 0.85 90 0.981 0.9
  6. 6. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Solo and Johnson 028 Table 3: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 2 0.016 0.01596964 4 0.032 0.03196856 6 0.048 0.04796676 8 0.064 0.06396424 10 0.082 0.079961 12 0.096 0.09595704 14 0.112 0.11195236 16 0.128 0.12794696 18 0.144 0.14394084 20 0.161 0.159934 22 0.176 0.17592644 24 0.193 0.19191816 26 0.209 0.20790916 28 0.225 0.22389944 30 0.241 0.239889 32 0.257 0.25587784 34 0.273 0.27186596 36 0.289 0.28785336 38 0.305 0.30384004 40 0.321 0.319826 Table 4: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 2 0.0178 0.01606008 4 0.0356 0.03206032 6 0.0534 0.04806072 8 0.0718 0.06406128 10 0.0891 0.080062 12 0.1069 0.09606288 14 0.1247 0.11206392 16 0.1425 0.12806512 18 0.1604 0.14406648 20 0.1782 0.160068 22 0.1961 0.17606968 24 0.2138 0.19207152 26 0.2316 0.20807352 28 0.2495 0.22407568 30 0.2673 0.240078 32 0.2851 0.25608048 34 0.3029 0.27208312 36 0.3207 0.28808592 38 0.3386 0.30408888 40 0.3564 0.320092
  7. 7. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 029 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci. Table 5: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 10 0.1258 0.11998 15 0.1875 0.179955 20 0.2516 0.23992 25 0.3145 0.299875 30 0.3774 0.35982 35 0.4403 0.419755 40 0.5032 0.47968 45 0.5661 0.539595 50 0.6291 0.5995 55 0.6919 0.659395 60 0.7548 0.71928 65 0.8177 0.779155 70 0.8806 0.83902 75 0.9435 0.898875 80 1.0064 0.95872 85 1.0693 1.018555 90 1.1322 1.07838 Table 6: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values 10 0.112 0.10997 15 0.168 0.1649325 20 0.222 0.21988 25 0.281 0.2748125 30 0.336 0.32973 35 0.392 0.3846325 40 0.448 0.43952 45 0.504 0.4943925 50 0.561 0.54925 55 0.616 0.6040925 60 0.672 0.65892 65 0.728 0.7137325 70 0.784 0.76853 75 0.841 0.8233125 80 0.896 0.87808 85 0.952 0.9328325 90 1.008 0.98757
  8. 8. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Solo and Johnson 030 Figure 1: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Figure 2: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 PredictiveandMeasuredValuesValuesof WorkplaceHumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 PredictiveandMeasuredFieldValuesof WorkplaceHumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values
  9. 9. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 031 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci. Figure 3: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Figure 4: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 10 20 30 40 50 PredictiveandMeasuredFieldValuesof WorkplaceHumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 PredictiveandMeasuredFieldValuesofWorkplace HumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values
  10. 10. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 Solo and Johnson 032 Figure 5: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period Figure 6: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 PredictiveandMeasuredFieldValuesofWorkplace HumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 PredictiveandMeasuredFieldValuesofWorkplace HumourStyle Period Workplace Humour Style Measurded Field Values
  11. 11. Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018 033 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci. CONCLUSION The study of workplace humour style tend to monitor the variation of attitudes of staff which determine their rates of efficiency at various periods in these cooperate organizations, these was achieve through various dimensions observed in the study to pressure the output of the staff in either positive or negative, the rate of workplace humour style explained various effect on the this dimensions related to the subject matter in the study environment, the rate of these companies productivity are determined from these stated variables, these parameters were integrated to generate system that formulate the governing equation, base on these conceptual module, it developed derive model that monitors the rate of workplace humour style in telecommunication companies, the study experienced exponential growth but the generated variation of parameters even though they maintained on linear trend in various figures in various period and location, these implies that the study developed some variation in output of the influential parameters, these variation generated the heterogeneity of the predictive values, the derived model parameter were compared with measured field values, and both parameters displayed favourable fits. REFERENCES AghajaniHashjeen T, Shoghi B, Shafizadeh R, Eisapour H (2013). The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Employee Creativity, Australian J. Basic and App. Sci., 7(2). Agho AO, Price JL (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 65 (4): 185-197. Atwater L, Carmeli A (2007). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 264-275. Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 72: 441–462. Avolio BJ, Howell JM, Sosik JJ (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Acad. Manag. J. 42(2): 219 –227. Bagherian R, Bahaman AS, Asnarulkhadi AS, Shamsuddin A (2009). Social exchange approach to people’s participations in watershed management programs in Iran. European J. Scientific Res. 34(3): 428-411. Brown SP (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organisational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120 (2): 235-255. Bryman A, Bell E (2003): Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Carbelo B, Jáuregui E (2006). Emocionespositivas: humorpositivo. PapelesdelPsicólogo, 27 (1): 18-30. Clouse RW, Spurgeon KL (1995). Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology: Quart. J. Hum. Behaviour, 32(3-4): 1–24. Kasrai AR, Alirahimi MM (2009). The investigation of relationship between organizational structure and effectiveness in retirement organization, J. Basirat, 44. Keller RT (1997). Job involvement and organisational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers. J. App. Psychol. 82 (4): 539-545. Kelly WE (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of humor. J. Psychol. 136: 657–666. Knoop R (1986). Job involvement: An elusive concept. Psychological Reports, 59: 451-456. Lease SH (1998). Work attitudes and outcomes. J. Vocational Behavior, 53: 154-183. Ledbetter R (2003). Organizational structure: Influencing factor and impact in the Grand Prairie Fire Department, National Fire Academy, Grand Prairie, Texas. Lefcourt HM, Davidson K, Shepherd R, Phillips M, Prkachin K, Mills D (1995). Perspective taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14: 373–391. Lewis TM (2011). Organizational structure effect on communication efficiency for management information system supported organizations: A Delphi Study, Pro Quest Dissertation and Theses. Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ (1997). Leader- member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15: 47–119.

×